Looks like it is war against american people by Trump, MSM and MIC. "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American
public believes is false." - Thats the biggest conspiracy of it all, they can execute their hidden agenda while people are fighting over crowd sizes,
small hands, two scoops of ice cream.

It is so sad to see our US presidency have become a 'Made for TV Episode' - Head of the Executive Branch in one episode and Executive Producer in
the other. And both appears in same MSM

originally posted by: Irishhaf
So an opinion piece is now considered iron clad fact?

Wow the bar has fallen here... I have used some sketchy sources in the past but never an opinion piece...

Did you read it?

It wasnt the guys opinion that the Chief of the NSA outed Trump.. it actually happened and he reported it

Incorrect. The source is John Schindler and he claims to have spoken to someone who was in a Town Hall where Rogers was speaking.

Use your brain. You have to believe that Rogers said this, more than he said to the investigative committees, in an broadcast town hall.

This week’s town hall event, which was broadcast to agency facilities worldwide, was therefore met with surprise and anticipation by the
NSA workforce, and Rogers did not disappoint. I have spoken with several NSA officials who witnessed the director’s talk and I’m reporting their
firsthand accounts, which corroborate each other, on condition of anonymity.

If that were true this story would be breaking from multiple sources.

Add to this that Schindler was kicked out of the NSA for sending pictures of his dick to a young woman online... he got the knickname "Mr Dick Pic".
Since then he has gone on to become somewhat of a twiiter conspiracy theorist and Trump hater. This is like Anthony Weiner saying he spoke to someone
who heard Rogers say Trump colluded with Russia.

Perhaps you would like to be a bit less eager to jump all in to a story just because it says what you want it to say.

Anonymous sources have been a (beneficial) cornerstone of the press for a very long time. No reason to suddenly not trust them simply because the
information they provide doesn't fit with one's preferred narrative or because a few might have been wrong.

Anonymous sources have been a (beneficial) cornerstone of the press for a very long time. No reason to suddenly not trust them simply because the
information they provide doesn't fit with one's preferred narrative or because a few might have been wrong.

Nope, there is no reason to trust any anonymous source until their information has been verified.
You can still partake in gossip until that point, but that is all it is.

Right now you are trusting a disgraced former NSA analyst who left the NSA 13 years ago and has claimed of a NSA townhall broadcast worldwide where
the NSA head publicly confirmed collusion, yet there seems to be no other source. Do you reckon no one else knew about it? We have no idea whether
this story is true, yet under these circumstances you want to err on the side of 'prove it's false'?????

Anonymous sources have been a (beneficial) cornerstone of the press for a very long time. No reason to suddenly not trust them simply because the
information they provide doesn't fit with one's preferred narrative or because a few might have been wrong.

Nope, there is no reason to trust any anonymous source until their information has been verified.
You can still partake in gossip until that point, but that is all it is.

It usually is verified, and it usually comes from a credible source who actually knows what's going on. That's why it's not gossip.

Anonymous sources have been a (beneficial) cornerstone of the press for a very long time. No reason to suddenly not trust them simply because the
information they provide doesn't fit with one's preferred narrative or because a few might have been wrong.

Nope, there is no reason to trust any anonymous source until their information has been verified.
You can still partake in gossip until that point, but that is all it is.

It usually is verified, and it usually comes from a source who actually knows what's going on. That's why it's not gossip.

Sorry that it doesn't fit with your preferred narrative, though.

When any of it is verified, then let us all know.
In the meantime there is a special counsel who will review all he wants to and determine the veracity of such claims.

Until then gossip away, but please don't whine about sensible people not buying into your gossip without proof.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
So an opinion piece is now considered iron clad fact?

Wow the bar has fallen here... I have used some sketchy sources in the past but never an opinion piece...

Did you read it?

It wasnt the guys opinion that the Chief of the NSA outed Trump.. it actually happened and he reported it

I wouldn't be so sure, the story seems fake to me and I hate Trump with a passion.

It's a pretty major story that would make front page news if true and run for weeks, yet it's burried in the opinion section of the site which hints
at editorial distrust/distancing from the claims. That doesn't automatically mean he's lying but the fact respectable news orgs aren't running with
the story strongly suggests they don't buy it either.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
So an opinion piece is now considered iron clad fact?

Wow the bar has fallen here... I have used some sketchy sources in the past but never an opinion piece...

Did you read it?

It wasnt the guys opinion that the Chief of the NSA outed Trump.. it actually happened and he reported it

Actually I did read it... they filed it under an opinion piece to give them legal wiggle room if someone comes at them over the story.

If they truly believed it was a 100% legit story it would have been front page the crown jewel of the news organization, this way they can just go
what... we trusted him woops thats why it was his opinion not the official stance of this organization.

Anonymous sources have been a (beneficial) cornerstone of the press for a very long time. No reason to suddenly not trust them simply because the
information they provide doesn't fit with one's preferred narrative or because a few might have been wrong.

Except that didn't apply during the last guys administration. So now suddenly every and all anonymous sources are believable and true? I see it gets
to be true because it in sync with your beliefs. Too many things were let go by that kind of thinking during Obamas terms, it didn't fit the media and
Democrat narrative! We had alleged spying on members of the press and a Attorney General held in contempt of Congress, but sure lets indulge your
Russian/Trump fantasies! Funny that five years after Romney declared Russia to be one of the biggest geo-political problems we are now seeing that
narrative play out. So was Obama and company in denial or was they just that clueless that only now are we seeing how correct Romney was????

I have no respect whatsoever for lipstick conservatives more attuned to personality worship than policy. Sorry, imo that's you!

No, it becomes real when there is actual evidence.
One of your links is over a year old.
Let's take the first Conservative from that list.

Mark Levin: “I Am Not Voting For Donald Trump. Period.” The conservative radio host reacted to an attack on him by Trump ally Roger Stone by
declaring, “I am not voting for Donald Trump. Period.” He added, “Count me as never Trump.”

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.